Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Programmable-Room: Interactive Textured 3D Room Meshes Generation Empowered by Large Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a natural-language instruction can be turned into an editable, textured 3D room mesh by having an LLM write a modular visual program that drives specialized generation and editing modules.

desk verdict A genuinely new integration of visual programming with modular 3D room generation, but the missing evaluation of LLM program-generation reliability and weak quantitative evidence make the strong claims premature. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17707 v1 pith:DKSKLYVA submitted 2025-06-21 cs.CV cs.AIcs.MM

Jihyun Kim , Junho Park , Kyeongbo Kong , Suk-Ju Kang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.MM
keywords visualprogramming3Dindoorscenegenerationpanoramatexturediffusionmodelslargelanguagelayout-conditionedroommesheditingtext-to-3D
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that one framework can take a natural-language instruction and produce an editable, textured 3D room mesh by decomposing the job into specialized modules and letting an LLM stitch them together as a short program. The benefit would be precise control: a user can change the floor's color, the room's width, or a piece of furniture without regenerating unrelated parts of the scene. For the texture step, the paper introduces PRIG, a diffusion model that generates a room panorama conditioned simultaneously on text and on layout, depth, and semantic maps. It also claims that adding a bidirectional-LSTM loss on a 1D layout representation improves panorama quality, and that the full framework outperforms prior text-to-3D-room systems in user-rated quality and 3D completeness. If these claims hold, conversational generation and editing of 3D indoor scenes becomes practical without manual 3D modeling.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the visual-programming loop: GPT-4 translates a natural-language instruction into a sequence of module calls, and an interpreter executes them while passing variables (coordinates, texture strings, image tensors, furniture lists) from each line to the next. The load-bearing component inside the texture module is PRIG, a latent-diffusion U-Net whose encoder and middle blocks are frozen from a pretrained text-to-image model, whose decoder is fine-tuned, and which conditions generation on a concatenation of layout, depth, and semantic maps through multi-scale feature injection with zero convolutions and feature denormalization. A bidirectional LSTM reads the panorama layout and predicts a 1D representation; the L2 distance between that prediction and the encoded layout coordinates is added to the latent-diffusion loss, which the paper shows improves geometric coherence.

What would settle it

Run Programmable-Room on a fixed set of, say, 100 instructions that combine two or three simultaneous edits, log how many times GPT-4 emits an executable program whose arguments are syntactically valid and within range, and compare the final meshes against the same instructions executed with ground-truth corner coordinates instead of LLM-inferred ones. If the program-generation success rate is low or the ground-truth-corner condition visibly improves panorama fidelity, then the LLM parsing and corner inference, not PRIG, are the limiting factors.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that interactive 3D indoor scene generation and editing can be organized as a visual-programming problem in which GPT-4, given a task description and in-context examples, writes an ordered Python-like list of calls to modules such as GenShape, GenTexture, GenEmptyRoom, and GenFurniture, and an interpreter executes the lines so that outputs of earlier calls become inputs of later ones. The same mechanism handles editing: EditShape, EditTexture, EditFurniture, and related modules modify stored variables, letting users iterate indefinitely on the same mesh. Within the texture module, PRIG concatenates a layout map, a depth map, and a semantic map into a nine-channel conditioning tensor, injects its features at four resolutions using multi-scale injection and feature denormalization, and trains a U-Net diffusion decoder with a latent diffusion loss plus a BiLSTM-based L2 loss on a 1D layout representation. The paper reports that PRIG with all three visual prompts and the BiLSTM loss achieves lower FID and KID than text-only panorama baselines, and that the full framework receives higher perceptual-quality and 3D-completeness scores than Text2Room, Holodeck, and SceneScape.

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline rests on the assumption that GPT-4, given a few in-context examples, will reliably translate any user instruction into the right ordered sequence of module calls with the right numbers, texture strings, and furniture names, because every later module consumes those outputs and the paper does not measure how often this translation succeeds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users can edit one room attribute at a time—shape, texture, or furniture—without disturbing the others, because each attribute is handled by a separate module operating on shared variables.
  • New or better modules can be swapped into the framework without retraining the rest, since each module has fixed inputs and outputs.
  • PRIG's panorama generation improves when all three visual prompts (layout, depth, semantic map) are used together, compared with any single prompt or pair of prompts.
  • Furniture layouts are stored in a CSS-like format, so editing furniture positions and orientations reduces to editing that file.
  • The reported inference time for a room mesh is about 154 seconds, two orders of magnitude faster than the slowest baseline and comparable to the fastest one.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper never reports how often GPT-4 produces a syntactically valid program with correctly parsed arguments, so a natural follow-up is to measure program-generation accuracy on a held-out instruction set and correlate failures with instruction complexity.
  • Because the layout, depth, and semantic maps are computed analytically from LLM-inferred corner coordinates, an ablation feeding ground-truth corners instead of inferred ones would isolate how much of any texture error comes from the LLM's geometry guesses rather than from PRIG itself.
  • The authors note the framework currently works mainly for bedrooms and living rooms; extending it to kitchens, bathrooms, or offices would test whether the bottleneck is the furniture-generation module or the LLM's commonsense about other room types.
  • The interactive editing loop suggests an evaluation that is absent from the paper: measuring how many instruction rounds a user needs to reach a target design and whether edits stay consistent across rounds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents Programmable-Room, a framework that uses GPT-4-based visual programming to translate natural-language instructions into ordered module calls for generating and interactively editing textured 3D room meshes. The pipeline decomposes the task into shape generation, panorama texture generation, empty-room mesh construction, and furniture arrangement. The main technical contribution is PRIG, a diffusion-based panorama generator conditioned jointly on text and multiple visual prompts (layout, depth, and semantic maps), trained with an additional BiLSTM-based 1D layout loss. The authors report FID/KID improvements for panorama generation, a user study for 3D mesh quality, and qualitative demonstrations of editing and controllability.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, the paper would make a useful contribution to text-driven 3D indoor scene generation by integrating LLM-based program synthesis with modular generation and editing, and PRIG's multi-conditioning with a BiLSTM layout loss is a plausible way to improve structural coherence in panorama generation. The paper provides clear qualitative demonstrations and reports quantitative comparisons on both panorama generation and 3D mesh generation. However, the evidence is currently incomplete: the central LLM program-generation step is not evaluated at all, the 3D mesh comparison relies on a small user study without statistical analysis and omits the most relevant baseline, and the panorama comparison gives PRIG privileged geometric conditioning. These issues need to be addressed before the claimed superiority and interactive-generality results can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-A] The framework's central premise is that GPT-4 reliably translates arbitrary natural-language instructions into correct, ordered module calls with correctly parsed arguments, but no quantitative evaluation of program generation is provided. There is no success rate, parse rate, argument-accuracy metric, or failure analysis. Because every downstream module depends on the generated calls and arguments, the claimed interactive editing and 'superiority' results are not yet supported for the general instruction space. Please add a program-generation evaluation, for example a held-out instruction set with module-call and argument-accuracy metrics, plus a per-instruction failure analysis and a discussion of whether failures are recoverable.
  2. [Section IV-D, Table II] The 3D mesh comparison is based on only 10 rooms and a 30-participant user study with no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests, so the reported PQ/3DS advantages (3.57 vs 2.68 and 3.82 vs 2.67) may not be statistically reliable. Moreover, Ctrl-Room, the closest baseline that also generates room meshes from layout-constrained panoramas, is discussed in Section II but is absent from Table II. Please add Ctrl-Room and report per-room variance with significance testing, or justify why a 10-room study is sufficient for the claimed superiority.
  3. [Section IV-D, Table I] The panorama comparison is asymmetric: PRIG receives layout, depth, and semantic maps generated from the text prompt via Programmable-Room, while Text2Light, MVDiffusion, and PanFusion receive only the text caption. The FID/KID gains therefore conflate PRIG's generative model with the additional geometric information supplied by the framework. Please either give the baselines equivalent visual prompts through compatible conditioning mechanisms, or separate the evaluation of the full pipeline from that of PRIG as a generative model, and discuss the effect of the extra information.
  4. [Appendix VI-A, Eq. (6)] The spherical conversion is written as phi = arccos(r/z), which is not a valid spherical-coordinate conversion because the argument is generally outside [-1,1]; the standard relation is phi = arccos(z/r). Since this projection is used to generate the layout map and hence conditions PRIG and the final room mesh, please correct the formula and verify that the implementation matches the corrected version.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction / Section III-B] In the paragraph beginning 'Especially for GenFurniture', the module that generates room texture images is called GenFurniture; this should be GenTexture (or the module naming should be clarified) to avoid confusion with the furniture-arrangement module.
  2. [Abstract / Project page] The project-page URL contains a space instead of an underscore in 'Programmable_Room_Page'; please correct it.
  3. [Section II-B] There is a typo: 'Howeverm' should be 'However'.
  4. [Section IV-D] The sentence 'The comparably high scores of our method implies that the baselines have difficulties...' should read 'The comparatively low FID/KID scores of our method imply...'.
  5. [Section III-B, Eq. (4)] The definition of S_1D and the BiLSTM encoder are underspecified. Please state how S is converted to S_1D, the hidden dimension used, and how the predicted S_1D is obtained from the panorama image, so that the loss in Eq. (4) is reproducible.
  6. [General] The paper does not state whether code or trained models will be released; for a framework with 18 modules, reproducibility would benefit from at least the PRIG training code and the module interface definitions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the core evaluations compare against external baselines and held-out Structure3D data, and no claimed prediction reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

I examined the derivation chain for the seven circularity patterns. The main technical claim is PRIG, a diffusion model conditioned on text and multiple visual prompts, trained with the auxiliary loss L_BiLSTM = ||S_1D - S_hat_1D||^2_2 (Eq. 4), where S_1D is a 1D encoding of the ground-truth layout coordinates and S_hat_1D is predicted from the ground-truth panorama image I. This is a supervised auxiliary loss against dataset annotations, not a self-referential prediction; the predicted quantity is not the same as the input condition. At inference, the visual prompts L, D, and M are produced by deterministic geometric projections from GenShape's 3D corner coordinates (Eqs. 6-11 in the appendix); they are conditioning inputs to PRIG, not outputs of PRIG, and the resulting panoramas are scored against real Structure3D test images with FID/KID. The comparison gives PRIG additional geometric conditioning that baselines lack, which is an experimental-fairness concern rather than circularity. The BiLSTM ablation and the visual-prompt ablations in Table III are genuine controlled comparisons. The 3D mesh user study compares against external methods (Text2Room, Holodeck, SceneScape) with human ratings, not against quantities derived from the same model. The paper's self-citations, [29] and [32], appear only in a grouped related-work sentence about user control in text-to-image generation and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work. The main weakness, unquantified GPT-4 program-generation reliability in Section III-A, is a missing-evaluation and generalization risk, not a circular derivation. Thus no step in the paper's claimed derivation reduces by definition to its inputs, and the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central system rests on LLM reliability, coordinate inference, and the capacity of Structure3D to represent the target room distribution. The trainable scalar weights in Eq. (5) are free parameters with unreported values. No new physical entities are introduced; the 1D layout representation is an internal feature representation without independent validation.

free parameters (3)
  • lambda_latent
    Weight for the latent diffusion loss in Eq. (5); value not reported, requires tuning.
  • lambda_BiLSTM
    Weight for the BiLSTM layout loss in Eq. (5); value not reported, requires tuning.
  • BiLSTM hidden state size / S_1D dimension
    The 1D layout representation S_1D is not defined, and the BiLSTM architecture is not specified; dimensions are chosen ad hoc.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GPT-4 with in-context examples reliably generates correct module programs and parses arguments from natural language instructions (Section III-A).
    Every downstream module depends on this; no quantitative success rate is given.
  • domain assumption GenShape infers 3D corner coordinates from language descriptions accurately enough for later projection into layout, depth, and semantic maps (Section III-B).
    No quantitative evaluation of coordinate accuracy; only qualitative examples.
  • domain assumption Structure3D empty-room data with Qwen-VL captions is a sufficient training distribution for PRIG (Section IV-A).
    The paper admits limited room categories in the conclusion.
  • standard math Pretrained Stable Diffusion, VQ-GAN, CLIP, and Uni-ControlNet components work as in their source papers (Section III-B).
    PRIG inherits their training and inference behavior without re-derivation.
invented entities (1)
  • 1D layout representation S_1D
    purpose: Compact bidirectional-LSTM encoding of room layout used as an auxiliary training target for PRIG (Eq. 4)
    Not defined in detail; its claimed benefit is only supported by the paper's own FID/KID improvement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Programmable-Room: Interactive Textured 3D Room Meshes Generation Empowered by Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DKSKLYVA

@misc{pith2026250617707,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Programmable-Room: Interactive Textured 3D Room Meshes Generation Empowered by Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DKSKLYVA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17707}
}
read the original abstract

We present Programmable-Room, a framework which interactively generates and edits a 3D room mesh, given natural language instructions. For precise control of a room's each attribute, we decompose the challenging task into simpler steps such as creating plausible 3D coordinates for room meshes, generating panorama images for the texture, constructing 3D meshes by integrating the coordinates and panorama texture images, and arranging furniture. To support the various decomposed tasks with a unified framework, we incorporate visual programming (VP). VP is a method that utilizes a large language model (LLM) to write a Python-like program which is an ordered list of necessary modules for the various tasks given in natural language. We develop most of the modules. Especially, for the texture generating module, we utilize a pretrained large-scale diffusion model to generate panorama images conditioned on text and visual prompts (i.e., layout, depth, and semantic map) simultaneously. Specifically, we enhance the panorama image generation quality by optimizing the training objective with a 1D representation of a panorama scene obtained from bidirectional LSTM. We demonstrate Programmable-Room's flexibility in generating and editing 3D room meshes, and prove our framework's superiority to an existing model quantitatively and qualitatively. Project page is available in https://jihyun0510.github.io/Programmable_Room_Page/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17707 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall pipeline of Programmable-Room. When a natural language instruction is given by users, Programmable-Room (PR) converts it to a python￾like visual program. Then for each line, modules supported by PR is activated. After the initial stage, users can continue editing the room mesh from the initial stage until they obtain the most satisfying result. The red, green, and blue module boxes are selected from the red,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Program generation in Programmable-Room. Given in-context examples with simple instructions, Programmable-Room infer programs for complex instructions. Text2Nerf [4] generate 3D indoor scenes by progressively up￾dating a 3D model frame-by-frame using images from various viewpoints. However, they tend to ignore global contexts as they rely on partial and local contexts during iterative image generation. Ctrl-Room [5]… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Modules supported by Programmable-Room. Blue boxes represent modules for generating rooms and furniture, while orange boxes represent modules for editing rooms and furniture. feasible due to the absence of training datasets. Therefore, Programmable-Room leverages in-context learning ability of LLMs. In-context learning is a way of fine-tuning LLMs to en￾hance their performance to certain tasks or domains, without up… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visual outputs generated by executing each line of the program. (a) 3D coordinates of room corners, (b-d) panorama images containing geometric information of the room, (e) textured panorama image conditioned on the room shape and texture description, (f) textured 3D ro…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Editing examples supported by Programmable-Room. The furniture, texture, and size of the room are edited by the text prompt given at each stage. Pairs of user instructions and corresponding bounding boxes are illustrated in the same color. from Structure3D [33], which …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Overall pipeline of panorama room image generation (PRIG). We utilize three latent embeddings x, z, and u to train PRIG. First, x is encoded from the panorama image I with VQ-GAN [36], z is obtained by multiple visual prompts (i.e., layout map L, depth map D, and seman…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative comparisons on panorama image generation. Red boxes denote wrong layout of the room, whereas green boxes denote correct layout of the room. PR indicates our Programmable-Room. in generating panorama texture images. Our method achieves the best FID and KID s…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative comparisons on 3D mesh generation. The first and fifth columns include rendered scenes from the top-view, whereas the rest columns include rendered scenes from the various views. PR indicates our Programmable-Room. of room layout, helping PRIG to better ref…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative results on types of visual prompts. The result from Programmable-Room (PR) indicates all the three visual prompts are given [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative results on the controllability of room layouts. The top-view results demonstrate Programmable-Room’s capability in controlling the room layouts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Additional editing results. Users can continuously edit the room by providing additional instructions. V. CONCLUSION We present Programmable-Room, a framework for inter￾active 3D room mesh generation and editing using user￾provided instructions in natural language for…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Qualitative results on diversity under same instructions. Programmable-Room is capable of generating rooms with various textures and furniture layouts which still satisfy the user instructions. the desired room shape. Moreover, from just one instruction, users can gen…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Visual programming: Compositional visual reasoning without training,

    T. Gupta and A. Kembhavi, “Visual programming: Compositional visual reasoning without training,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 14 953–14 962

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkatet al., “Gpt-4 technical report,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Text2room: Extracting textured 3d meshes from 2d text-to-image models,

    L. H ¨ollein, A. Cao, A. Owens, J. Johnson, and M. Nießner, “Text2room: Extracting textured 3d meshes from 2d text-to-image models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 7909–7920

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Text2nerf: Text-driven 3d scene generation with neural radiance fields,

    J. Zhang, X. Li, Z. Wan, C. Wang, and J. Liao, “Text2nerf: Text-driven 3d scene generation with neural radiance fields,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Ctrl-room: Controllable text- to-3d room meshes generation with layout constraints,

    C. Fang, X. Hu, K. Luo, and P. Tan, “Ctrl-room: Controllable text- to-3d room meshes generation with layout constraints,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03602, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Holodeck: Language guided generation of 3d embodied ai environments,

    Y . Yang, F.-Y . Sun, L. Weihs, E. VanderBilt, A. Herrasti, W. Han, J. Wu, N. Haber, R. Krishna, L. Liuet al., “Holodeck: Language guided generation of 3d embodied ai environments,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 16 227–16 237

    2024

  7. [7]

    Scenescape: Text- driven consistent scene generation,

    R. Fridman, A. Abecasis, Y . Kasten, and T. Dekel, “Scenescape: Text- driven consistent scene generation,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,

    R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, and B. Ommer, “High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, 2022, pp. 10 684–10 695

    2022

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Taming stable diffusion for text to 360 panorama image generation,

    C. Zhang, Q. Wu, C. C. Gambardella, X. Huang, D. Phung, W. Ouyang, and J. Cai, “Taming stable diffusion for text to 360 panorama image generation,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 6347–6357

    2024

  2. [10]

    Text2light: Zero-shot text-driven hdr panorama generation,

    Z. Chen, G. Wang, and Z. Liu, “Text2light: Zero-shot text-driven hdr panorama generation,”ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1–16, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Mvdiffusion: Enabling holistic multi-view image generation with correspondence- aware diffusion,

    S. Tang, F. Zhang, J. Chen, P. Wang, and Y . Furukawa, “Mvdiffusion: Enabling holistic multi-view image generation with correspondence- aware diffusion,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Uni-controlnet: All-in-one control to text-to-image diffusion models,

    S. Zhao, D. Chen, Y .-C. Chen, J. Bao, S. Hao, L. Yuan, and K.-Y . K. Wong, “Uni-controlnet: All-in-one control to text-to-image diffusion models,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Deep bidirectional and unidi- rectional lstm recurrent neural network for network-wide traffic speed prediction,

    Z. Cui, R. Ke, Z. Pu, and Y . Wang, “Deep bidirectional and unidi- rectional lstm recurrent neural network for network-wide traffic speed prediction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.02143, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Sceneformer: Indoor scene generation with transformers,

    X. Wang, C. Yeshwanth, and M. Nießner, “Sceneformer: Indoor scene generation with transformers,” inInternational Conference on 3D Vision, 2021, pp. 106–115

    2021

  7. [15]

    Atiss: Autoregressive transformers for indoor scene synthesis,

    D. Paschalidou, A. Kar, M. Shugrina, K. Kreis, A. Geiger, and S. Fidler, “Atiss: Autoregressive transformers for indoor scene synthesis,”Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 12 013– 12 026, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Commonscenes: Generating commonsense 3d indoor scenes with scene graphs,

    G. Zhai, E. P. ¨Ornek, S.-C. Wu, Y . Di, F. Tombari, N. Navab, and B. Busam, “Commonscenes: Generating commonsense 3d indoor scenes with scene graphs,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Diffuscene: Scene graph denoising diffusion probabilistic model for generative indoor scene synthesis,

    J. Tang, Y . Nie, L. Markhasin, A. Dai, J. Thies, and M. Nießner, “Diffuscene: Scene graph denoising diffusion probabilistic model for generative indoor scene synthesis,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.14207, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gaudi: A neural architect for immersive 3d scene generation,

    M. A. Bautista, P. Guo, S. Abnar, W. Talbott, A. Toshev, Z. Chen, L. Dinh, S. Zhai, H. Goh, D. Ulbrichtet al., “Gaudi: A neural architect for immersive 3d scene generation,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 25 102–25 116, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Rgbd2: Generative scene synthesis via incre- mental view inpainting using rgbd diffusion models,

    J. Lei, J. Tang, and K. Jia, “Rgbd2: Generative scene synthesis via incre- mental view inpainting using rgbd diffusion models,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 8422–8434

    2023

  12. [20]

    Cc3d: Layout-conditioned generation of com- positional 3d scenes,

    S. Bahmani, J. J. Park, D. Paschalidou, X. Yan, G. Wetzstein, L. Guibas, and A. Tagliasacchi, “Cc3d: Layout-conditioned generation of com- positional 3d scenes,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 7171–7181

    2023

  13. [21]

    Roomdreamer: Text-driven 3d indoor scene synthesis with coherent geometry and texture,

    L. Song, L. Cao, H. Xu, K. Kang, F. Tang, J. Yuan, and Y . Zhao, “Roomdreamer: Text-driven 3d indoor scene synthesis with coherent geometry and texture,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11337, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Roomdesigner: Encoding anchor-latents for style-consistent and shape-compatible indoor scene generation,

    Y . Zhao, Z. Zhao, J. Li, S. Dong, and S. Gao, “Roomdesigner: Encoding anchor-latents for style-consistent and shape-compatible indoor scene generation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10027, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Lego-net: Learning regular rearrangements of objects in rooms,

    Q. A. Wei, S. Ding, J. J. Park, R. Sajnani, A. Poulenard, S. Sridhar, and L. Guibas, “Lego-net: Learning regular rearrangements of objects in rooms,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 19 037–19 047. 11

    2023

  16. [24]

    Layoutgpt: Compositional visual planning and generation with large language models,

    W. Feng, W. Zhu, T.-j. Fu, V . Jampani, A. Akula, X. He, S. Basu, X. E. Wang, and W. Y . Wang, “Layoutgpt: Compositional visual planning and generation with large language models,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Virtuosotune: Hierarchical melody language model,

    D. Jeong, “Virtuosotune: Hierarchical melody language model,”IEIE Transactions on Smart Processing & Computing, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 329–333, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Cross-modal semantic match- ing generative adversarial networks for text-to-image synthesis,

    H. Tan, X. Liu, B. Yin, and X. Li, “Cross-modal semantic match- ing generative adversarial networks for text-to-image synthesis,”IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 24, pp. 832–845, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Knowledge-driven generative adversarial network for text-to-image synthesis,

    J. Peng, Y . Zhou, X. Sun, L. Cao, Y . Wu, F. Huang, and R. Ji, “Knowledge-driven generative adversarial network for text-to-image synthesis,”IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 24, pp. 4356–4366, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Semantic distance adversarial learning for text-to-image synthesis,

    B. Yuan, Y . Sheng, B.-K. Bao, Y .-P. P. Chen, and C. Xu, “Semantic distance adversarial learning for text-to-image synthesis,”IEEE Trans- actions on Multimedia, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Controlling 3d human action with transformer variational autoencoder in latent space,

    H. Kim, K. Kong, J. K. Kim, J. Lee, G. Cha, H.-D. Jang, D. Wee, and S.-J. Kang, “Controlling 3d human action with transformer variational autoencoder in latent space,”IEIE Transactions on Smart Processing & Computing, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 209–214, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models,

    L. Zhang, A. Rao, and M. Agrawala, “Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 3836–3847

    2023

  23. [31]

    T2i- adapter: Learning adapters to dig out more controllable ability for text- to-image diffusion models,

    C. Mou, X. Wang, L. Xie, Y . Wu, J. Zhang, Z. Qi, and Y . Shan, “T2i- adapter: Learning adapters to dig out more controllable ability for text- to-image diffusion models,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 5, 2024, pp. 4296–4304

    2024

  24. [32]

    Attentionhand: Text-driven control- lable hand image generation for 3d hand reconstruction in the wild,

    J. Park, K. Kong, and S.-J. Kang, “Attentionhand: Text-driven control- lable hand image generation for 3d hand reconstruction in the wild,” in European Conference on Computer Vision, 2024, pp. 329–345

    2024

  25. [33]

    Structured3d: A large photo-realistic dataset for structured 3d modeling,

    J. Zheng, J. Zhang, J. Li, R. Tang, S. Gao, and Z. Zhou, “Structured3d: A large photo-realistic dataset for structured 3d modeling,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, 2020, pp. 519–535

    2020

  26. [34]

    Qwen-vl: A frontier large vision-language model with versatile abilities,

    J. Bai, S. Bai, S. Yang, S. Wang, S. Tan, P. Wang, J. Lin, C. Zhou, and J. Zhou, “Qwen-vl: A frontier large vision-language model with versatile abilities,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12966, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Semantic image synthesis with spatially-adaptive normalization,

    T. Park, M.-Y . Liu, T.-C. Wang, and J.-Y . Zhu, “Semantic image synthesis with spatially-adaptive normalization,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2019, pp. 2337–2346

    2019

  28. [36]

    Taming transformers for high- resolution image synthesis,

    P. Esser, R. Rombach, and B. Ommer, “Taming transformers for high- resolution image synthesis,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 12 873– 12 883

    2021

  29. [37]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clarket al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2021, pp. 8748–8763

    2021

  30. [38]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” inMedical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 2015, pp. 234–241

    2015

  32. [40]

    3d-future: 3d furniture shape with texture,

    H. Fu, R. Jia, L. Gao, M. Gong, B. Zhao, S. Maybank, and D. Tao, “3d-future: 3d furniture shape with texture,”International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 129, pp. 3313–3337, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    3d-front: 3d furnished rooms with layouts and semantics,

    H. Fu, B. Cai, L. Gao, L.-X. Zhang, J. Wang, C. Li, Q. Zeng, C. Sun, R. Jia, B. Zhaoet al., “3d-front: 3d furnished rooms with layouts and semantics,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 10 933–10 942

    2021

  34. [42]

    Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium,

    M. Heusel, H. Ramsauer, T. Unterthiner, B. Nessler, and S. Hochreiter, “Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  35. [43]

    Demysti- fying mmd gans,

    M. Bi ´nkowski, D. J. Sutherland, M. Arbel, and A. Gretton, “Demysti- fying mmd gans,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.01401, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014. Jihyun Kimreceived the B.S. degree in business management from Sogang University, Seoul, South Korea, in 2021, and the M.S. degree in artifical intelligence from Sogang University,...

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.